Full Opinion

10/20/2026 DA 24-0420 Case Number: DA 24-0420 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2026 MT 250 STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. DOUGLAS JEROME PIERRE, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Twentieth Judicial District, In and For the County of Lake, Cause No. DC-23-161 Honorable John W. Larson, Presiding Judge COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Tammy A. Hinderman, Appellate Defender Division Administrator, Emma N. Sauve, Assistant Appellate Defender, Helena, Montana For Appellee: Austin Knudsen, Montana Attorney General, Thad Tudor, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana James Lapotka, Lake County Attorney, Lori Adams, Deputy County Attorney, Polson, Montana Submitted on Briefs: September 9, 2026 Decided: October 20, 2026 Filed: __________________________________________ Clerk Justice Laurie McKinnon delivered the Opinion of the Court. ¶1 Douglas Jerome Pierre (Pierre) appeals his judgment, following a jury trial in the Twentieth Judicial District Court, Lake County. On January 5, 2024, Pierre was convicted of one charge of Partner Family Member Assault (PFMA), in violation of § 45-5-206(1)(a), MCA, and one charge of felony tampering with witnesses, in violation of § 45-7-206, MCA. Pierre appeals only his conviction for PFMA. ¶2 We restate the issues on appeal as follows: Issue 1: Whether it was an abuse of discretion for the court to allow rebuttal testimony from Officer Doyle. Issue 2: Whether Pierre is entitled to credit for his time at Recovery Centers of Montana (RCM). ¶3 We affirm on Issue 1 and remand Issue 2 to the District Court for entry of judgment consistent with this Opinion. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶4 This case arises from a domestic dispute on April 14, 2023, when Danielle Dalke’s (Dalke) neighbor called 911 after hearing a loud thumping sound from a neighboring apartment followed by Dalke, Pierre’s then girlfriend, yelling “help” and “stop.” Polson police officers responded finding Pierre; his minor daughter, L.P.; Pierre’s brother; and Dalke at the scene. ¶5 Police Officer Cody Doyle testified to, and his body cam footage shows, that Dalke came to the door crying and clutching her left side in pain. Dalke was doubled over and only able to take short quick breaths, repeating: “I can’t breathe. I can’t breathe.” At the scene, Dalke explained to Officer Doyle that Pierre punched her in the ribs multiple times 2 and that L.P., who was eight years old, witnessed the events. Dalke stated that after Pierre had punched her and left the apartment, Pierre returned to the apartment and punched her again. Officer Doyle called for an ambulance and Dalke was taken to the hospital. L.P. was also taken to the hospital where her mother, Alicia Bigcrane, was notified to pick L.P. up. At the hospital, Officer Doyle’s body cam footage again shows Dalke explaining that she had been hit by Pierre multiple times. Based on the pain, Dalke felt sure that Pierre had broken her rib. ¶6 Dr. Aaron Haire diagnosed Dalke with a rib contusion and noted Dalke said she had been punched in the ribs by her boyfriend. Dr. Haire administered fentanyl for Dalke’s pain. He testified he was not concerned that she had been using alcohol and meth because her “mental status was normal. She wasn’t somnolent, she was responding appropriately, [and] her vital signs were okay.” ¶7 Pierre was arrested on April 14, 2023, and on May 23, 2023, Pierre filed an unopposed motion for release to attend treatment. The release was granted, and on May 28, 2023, Pierre was released with orders to attend treatment at RCM. On November 27, 2023, Pierre’s bond was revoked because he contacted Dalke in violation of his release conditions. Pierre and Dalke exchanged numerous text messages in November 2023 wherein they communicated they still loved each other. ¶8 Pierre’s defense theory at trial can be summed up by his opening statement, “Ms. Dalke was faking it, had lied, and made up the story because she wanted Pierre to be in trouble because he had threatened to leave her.” The Defense maintained Dalke lied about her injury, was under the influence of drugs and alcohol, and had gone to the hospital 3 only for the purpose of seeking drugs. The State anticipated Dalke would provide inconsistent testimony from what she told police at the scene and medical staff at the hospital. The State therefore deposed Dalke in December of 2023 wherein Dalke, for the first time, claimed she could not remember what had happened and that she had falsely accused Pierre. The State’s case, accordingly, was based on the officer’s and medical staff’s testimony, the body cam footage, and calling Dalke as an adverse witness. To resolve whether the District Court abused its discretion in allowing certain rebuttal testimony, it is necessary to examine the testimony produced at trial. State’s Case in Chief ¶9 Dalke testified in response to each of the State’s questions about the events of April 14, 2023, that she could not remember what happened. She explained that her failure to remember was because she was under the influence of alcohol and meth when she made the accusations to the officers at the scene and at the hospital. She asserted that she was mad at Pierre for breaking up with her and she had falsely accused Pierre to get him in trouble. Following Dalke’s testimony that she could not remember the incident and that she was motivated to make false claims out of anger at Pierre for breaking up with her, the State introduced clips from Officer Doyle’s body cam footage showing Dalke clutching her side in pain, crying hysterically, and unable to breathe, while naming Pierre as her assailant. ¶10 During the time the State was playing these clips for the jury, Dalke on several occasions would look at Pierre, put her hand over her heart, and mouth the words “I’m sorry” and “I love you.” These gestures were seen by Officer Doyle, the State, and the 4 district judge. The gestures were consistent with Dalke’s testimony that she loves Pierre and with the November 2023 text messages that took place just before her deposition in December. During the State’s case, Dalke testified as follows: [State]: Okay. Do you love Mr. Pierre? [Dalke]: As a person, yes. . . . [State]: So you’re saying -- so did you have contact with Mr. Pierre in November of -- I almost said this year -- 2023? [Dalke]: Yes. [State]: And that was through text messages? [Dalke]: Yes. [State]: And there were numerous text messages, correct? [Dalke]: Yes. [State]: And in those text messages, the main theme is you love him and he loves you, correct? [Dalke]: Yes. ¶11 During Pierre’s cross-examination of Dalke, he sought to show that Dalke’s testimony at trial was the credible version of what happened, not the accusations and statements she made to police and medical staff when she was under the influence and angry. Pierre’s cross-examination of Dalke follows: [Counsel]: I’m going to try to make this quick. You testified that you were under the influence that day [you accused Pierre]. What were you under the influence of? [Dalke]: Alcohol and meth. 5 . . . [Counsel]: And have you given sworn statements prior to today in regards to this case? [Dalke]: Yes. [Counsel]: How -- were you contacted by the prosecution prior to October of this year? Do you recall? [Dalke]: No. [Counsel]: And the prior sworn statements that you gave, were they different than the testimony you’re giving today? [Dalke]: No. [Counsel]: Were you sober when you gave those statements? [Dalke]: Yes. [Counsel]: Are you sober today? [Dalke]: Yes. ¶12 The State then called L.P., an eyewitness to the incident, who testified as follows: [State]: Did something happen between Dani and your Dad? [L.P.]: Yes. [State]: How did it make you feel? [L.P.]: It made me scared. [State]: Did Dani go to the hospital? [L.P.]: Yes. [State]: And did you end up going to the hospital too? [L.P.]: Yes. 6 [State]: Until your mom could pick you up? [L.P.]: Yes. [State]: And what is it that happened that made Dani go to the hospital? [L.P.]: My dad hit her. . . . [State]: And did you see that happen? [L.P.]: I think so. . . . [State]: Did your dad hit Dani more than once? [L.P.]: I think so. ¶13 The State also called Bigcrane to testify to Dalke’s upset demeanor at the hospital when Bigcrane arrived to pick up L.P. Pierre cross-examined Bigcrane buttressing his theory that Dalke had made up the accusations against him: [Counsel]: That’s fair. But you do admit that you told Mr. Pierre -- that Ms. Dalke was drug-seeking? [Alicia]: Yes, I did. . . . [Counsel]: Do you also agree or remember telling Mr. Pierre that she was faking it; Ms. Dalke? [Alicia]: It appeared to be so. ¶14 The State next called Dr. Haire as a witness in support of its position that Dalke’s statements at the hospital and to officers were the credible statements for the jury to believe. 7 [State]: Did Ms. Dalke indicate to you whether or not she had used alcohol or any drugs? [Dr. Haire]: Per my notes, she said that she had drank alcohol and used meth. [State]: Did that concern you with giving her the fentanyl? [Dr. Haire]: Not really. Her mental status was normal. She wasn’t somnolent, she was responding appropriately, her vitals signs were okay. [State]: So I think I’ve seen medical words that have said she was oriented to time and place? [Dr. Haire]: Correct. [State]: And did she answer your questions appropriately? [Dr. Haire]: She did. [State]: Did she have any trouble following what you were saying? [Dr. Haire]: Didn’t seem like it, from review of my note. . . . [State]: Throughout her time there, did she give consistent statements about what happened? [Dr. Haire]: Um, I’m not sure. I didn’t document that she said multiple times that it was her boyfriend who hit her, but from -- my note and the nurse’s note are both consistent with that. . . . [State]: Did you think Ms. Dalke was pill shopping? [Dr. Haire]: Per my note, I didn’t think so. I’ll usually mention that in my note if I have some suspicion of that. The above excerpts constitute the relevant portions of the State’s case. 8 Defense’s Case ¶15 Pierre recalled Dalke to the stand. Pierre sought to attack Dalke’s credibility at the time she made the accusations to police and medical staff by showing she had used drugs and alcohol and she had suffered no injury. He contrasted this with Dalke’s trial testimony to show that Dalke’s trial testimony was the credible version to believe. [Counsel]: And you also admitted that you were using methamphetamine that day; is that correct? [Dalke]: Yes. And alcohol. [Counsel]: You previously gave sworn testimony in this case; is that correct? [Dalke]: Yes. [Counsel]: Were you sober the day you did that? [Dalke]: Yes. [Counsel]: Did what you testified to yesterday differ from what you testified to at that earlier time? [Dalke]: No. ¶16 On cross-examination, the State then asked about the gestures Dalke made to Pierre when she testified during the State’s direct examination: [State]: And yesterday when you testified, you put your hand to your heart and you whispered to the defendant, I’m sorry; and, I love you. Why did you do that? [Dalke]: I didn’t. [State]: You didn’t do that? [Dalke]: No, I didn’t. 9 Pierre did not object to the State’s inquiry regarding Dalke’s gestures and statements made the previous day. Importantly, Dalke denied making them. ¶17 Pierre, on redirect, asked Dalke about her current relationship with Pierre: [Counsel]: And, yesterday, you also testified that you’re not in a relationship with Mr. Pierre; is that correct? [Dalke]: Yes. [Counsel]: You testified that he’s actually in a relationship with somebody else? [Dalke]: Yes. State’s Rebuttal ¶18 During an in-chambers conference the District Court noted the gestures made by Dalke during the State’s direct examination. The State called Officer Doyle in rebuttal to testify to Dalke’s gestures and to rebut her denial of making them. Pierre objected on grounds of relevance and foundation which the District Court overruled allowing the State to question Officer Doyle about Dalke’s actions while she was on the stand during the State’s case: [State]: Did you see Ms. Dalke make any reference or speak to the defendant or whisper to the defendant? [Doyle]: Yes. [State]: What did you see? [Doyle]: I saw her, a couple of times, make eye contact with the defendant and then mouth the words, I love you. . . . 10 [State]: So I -- you said you saw her say, I love you. Did you hear her whisper anything else? [Doyle]: As well as, “I love you,” and “I’m sorry.” [State]: Okay. And did you see that once or more than once? [Doyle]: It was more than once. ¶19 On January 5, 2024, the jury found Pierre guilty of both charges. At sentencing on May 22, 2024, the court imposed a 10-year sentence for the witness tampering charge and 5 years suspended for the PFMA, to run consecutively to the witness tampering charge. The court credited Pierre with 221 days for time served. The parties did not address credit for Pierre’s time spent at RCM completing treatment by order of the court between May 28, 2023, and November 28, 2023. The record does not provide how long Pierre spent completing this court ordered treatment. ¶20 Pierre appeals. STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶21 District courts have broad discretion to determine the admissibility of evidence in accordance with the Montana Rules of Evidence and related statutory and jurisprudential rules. State v. McGhee, 2021 MT 193, ¶ 10, 405 Mont. 121, 492 P.3d 193 (citing State v. Derbyshire, 2009 MT 27, ¶ 19, 349 Mont. 114, 201 P.3d 811; State v. Parker, 2007 MT 243, ¶ 9, 339 Mont. 211, 169 P.3d 380; State v. Strauss, 2003 MT 195, ¶ 18, 317 Mont. 1, 74 P.3d 1052). Except for related interpretations or applications of law which we review de novo for correctness, we generally review evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion. McGhee, ¶ 10 (citing Derbyshire, ¶ 19; State v. Passmore, 2010 MT 34, ¶ 51, 355 Mont. 11 187, 225 P.3d 1229). An abuse of discretion occurs if a court exercises its discretion based on a clearly erroneous finding of fact, an erroneous conclusion or application of law, or otherwise acts arbitrarily, without conscientious judgment or outside the bounds of reason, resulting in substantial injustice. McGhee, ¶ 10 (citing State v. Pelletier, 2020 MT 249, ¶ 12, 401 Mont. 454, 473 P.3d 991 (internal citations omitted); Derbyshire, ¶ 19). ¶22 “A district court’s calculation of credit for time served is reviewed for legality and we exercise de novo review.” State v. Risher, 2024 MT 309, ¶ 6, 419 Mont. 395, 560 P.3d 1203 (quoting State v. Crazymule, 2024 MT 58, ¶ 8, 415 Mont. 536, 545 P.3d 66). DISCUSSION ¶23 Issue 1: Whether it was an abuse of discretion for the court to allow rebuttal testimony from Officer Doyle. ¶24 Pierre, relying on State v. Hunt, 2025 MT 122, 422 Mont. 322, 570 P.3d 567 and State v. Torres, 2021 MT 301, 406 Mont. 353, 498 P.3d 1256, asserts the District Court abused its discretion when it allowed the State to introduce rebuttal evidence through Officer Doyle. He argues that the State improperly “opened the door” for Officer Doyle’s rebuttal testimony when it asked Dalke about her conduct during direct examination in the State’s case and which was not specifically raised during the defense’s case. Pierre argues that the State “set the trap” to introduce extrinsic evidence of Dalke’s trial conduct. ¶25 The State maintains that it was Pierre who called Dalke to vouch for the accuracy of her trial and deposition testimony and draw a contrast to her credibility when she made the accusations to police. When Dalke denied making the gestures during the State’s cross-examination, the State maintains it was properly allowed to rebut her denial by 12 introducing Officer Doyle’s testimony to impeach Dalke. Relevant to the State’s case was proving that Dalke had changed her testimony because she wanted to protect Pierre. ¶26 “Determining the admissibility of rebuttal testimony is within the sound discretion of the district court, and we will not reverse the district court’s ruling unless it abused this discretion.” State v. Hocevar, 2000 MT 157, ¶ 76, 300 Mont. 167, 7 P.3d 329 (citations omitted). Rebuttal evidence offered by the State is proper only if it tends to counteract a new matter offered by the defense and has a tendency to contradict or disprove that evidence. State v. Gardner, 2003 MT 338, ¶ 36, 318 Mont. 436, 80 P.3d 1262 (citation omitted). ¶27 In Torres, the defendant was charged with partner or family member assault after his girlfriend reported to police that he had “headbutted” and then strangled her as she was packing to leave. Torres, ¶ 7. Torres testified in his own defense at trial. Torres, ¶ 13. On cross-examination the State asked whether Torres had ever strangled anyone. Torres, ¶ 28. Torres answered no and the State in rebuttal called a previous girlfriend who testified that Torres had strangled her. Torres, ¶ 18. We held that nothing in Torres’ testimony opened the door to rebut or impeach with a prior bad act of strangulation. Torres, ¶ 41. Torres, however, is distinguishable from the circumstances here because this case was not about prior bad acts or propensity evidence; rather, it was based on which version of events Dalke provided was the most credible. When she gestured “I’m sorry” and “I love you” while holding her hand over her heart it became relevant to her credibility and whether she had changed her story and for what reason. Front and center in this case was whether Dalke had changed her initial story to protect Pierre from a conviction. Her gestures were relevant 13 to the State’s theory that she did change her story because she loved Pierre and wanted to protect him. ¶28 In Hunt, we held the circumstances were analogous to Torres. Hunt was asked a similar broad question when the State during cross-examination inquired whether she sold drugs. Hunt, ¶ 15. She denied selling drugs in Montana or anywhere. Hunt, ¶ 15. The State then introduced rebuttal evidence of uncharged prior bad acts. Hunt, ¶¶ 16-17. We held “Hunt did not make a strategic decision to give those answers to the jury, the State did. Put another way, Hunt did not open the door, the State did.” Hunt, ¶ 44. ¶29 Hunt and Torres do not provide any support for Pierre’s argument. Here, the Defense called a witness who had earlier during trial made gestures and mouthed statements to Pierre. When the State during cross-examination asked if she had made the gestures and mouthed the words, she denied doing so. Pierre did not object to the State’s line of inquiry and Dalke’s denial was fair game for the State to introduce rebuttal testimony that she had in fact made the gestures. This is not a case involving the introduction of prejudicial prior bad acts evidence. At issue with respect to Dalke’s testimony was her credibility. Pierre’s defense theory was to draw a distinction in Dalke’s credibility between the accusations she made to police while under the influence, drug seeking, and angry at Pierre for breaking up with her, versus a sober statement under oath at a deposition and trial. The cross-examination regarding Dalke’s gestures and statements to Pierre, that “[she loves Pierre]” and “[is] sorry,” is directly relevant to contradict Pierre’s intended implication that Dalke is now telling the truth after becoming sober. The State sought to show that she still loves Pierre and is now lying to cover for him at trial. When 14 Dalke denied having made the statements on cross-examination, the rebuttal testimony was then allowed as a prior inconsistent statement under M. R. Evid. 613(b). Rule 613(b) allows for the introduction of extrinsic evidence when the “witness is afforded opportunity to explain or deny the same and the opposite party is afforded opportunity to interrogate the witness thereon.” Dalke had the opportunity and denied making the statements. ¶30 Here, Pierre opened the door for the State’s line of questioning regarding Dalke’s credibility, truthfulness, motivations, and bias by calling Dalke as his witness and placing directly at issue two inconsistent versions Dalke had of the incident. Indeed, the whole trial, both the State and defense theories, was about prior inconsistent statements, with Dalke’s gestures and mouthing certain statements constituting the final coup d’etat. Dalke’s denial provided the State with the opportunity to introduce extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement. The rebuttal testimony was properly admitted, and the District Court did not abuse its discretion when it allowed Officer Doyle’s rebuttal testimony to impeach Dalke’s credibility and her motivations for her changing testimony. ¶31 Issue 2: Whether Pierre is entitled to credit for his time at RCM. ¶32 Pursuant to § 46-18-403(1)(a), MCA, sentencing courts are required to give defendants credit for time served for each day of incarceration prior to imposition of the sentence. Incarceration includes “time spent in a . . . residential treatment facility” under the order of a court. Section 46-18-403(1)(b)(v) (2023). ¶33 Here, Pierre spent time at RCM under court order. The State concedes Pierre is entitled to time spent at RCM under that order. The District Court gave Pierre credit for time he served while in custody but failed to give him credit for time Pierre spent at RCM. 15 Accordingly, we remand this issue back to the District Court for a determination of how many days Pierre spent at RCM and to grant him credit for the time he served. CONCLUSION ¶34 The District Court did not abuse its discretion when it allowed the State to introduce rebuttal testimony of Officer Doyle. Pierre is entitled to credit for his time spent at RCM prior to sentencing and the District Court must now determine how long Pierre spent at court ordered treatment and grant him credit for the time served. ¶35 We affirm Issue 1 and remand Issue 2 back to the District Court for further proceedings in accordance with this Opinion. /S/ LAURIE McKINNON We Concur: /S/ CORY J. SWANSON /S/ KATHERINE M. BIDEGARAY /S/ INGRID GUSTAFSON /S/ JIM RICE 16